Name's Jason Thibeault. I'm an IT guy, skeptic, feminist, gamer and atheist, and love OSS, science of all stripes (especially space-related stuff), and debating on-line and off. I enjoy a good bit of whargarbl now and again, and will occasionally even seek it out. I am also apparently responsible for the death of common sense on the internet. My bad.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

EVENTS

Fischer: “Capitalism is based on Jesus’ teachings”

I had no idea the prosperity gospel was based on anything but wishful thinking. Bryan Fischer teaches me otherwise! See, in Mark, Jesus said that his death SERVED humanity, ergo the capitalist principle of “the customer is always right!” Or something.

Of course, he also said “sell all your possessions and buy a sword”, but hey.

Speaking as a professional economist, I have to disagree with Mr. Fisher’s inane definition of capitalism.

In simplistic terms, capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of individuals or corporations to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

The basis of capitalism is individualism. The economic system stems from humanistic ideals of the 18th century European Enlightenment–beliefs that each human being is individually unique and valuable. This mode of thinking was a turning point. Before the Enlightenment, governments didn’t talk about human rights. But in this vision of humanity, a society made up of unique individuals who pursue their individual interests is healthy — it’s characterized by progress, spiritual and worldly wealth, and liberty. Individuals are not just free to pursue self-interested goals; they should pursue self-interested goals.

It’s easy to see how this shift in social consciousness became the basis of capitalism. If self-interest is a good thing, and personal wealth is a self-interested goal, then widespread personal wealth is a good thing. And if individual welfare leads to overall social welfare, than individual wealth leads to overall social wealth.

The added philosophical view that turns the social concept of individualism into the economic concept of capitalism came from Adam Smith in the late 1700s. His book, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (usually called Wealth of Nations), had a profound effect on economic principles. Before Smith, the economic self-interest of the individual was seen as counterproductive–or at least non-contributory–to the economic welfare of society as a whole. Smith disagreed with this belief. He suggested two concepts that ultimately became the basis of capitalism:

● Because self-interest guides producers to create exactly what people want, the pursuit of personal gain eventually benefits society.
● An economy has a natural design. Left to its own devices–and removed from politics, religion and all other pursuits–it will regulate itself. As long as no one throws a spoke in the wheel, the economy will work the way it’s supposed to, and everyone will benefit.

Thus rose laissez faire capitalism. If anyone’s interested, I can explain how and why pure capitalism changed into the mixed market system we have now. Basically, Smith’s second idea was flawed.

If anyone’s interested, I can explain how and why pure capitalism changed into the mixed market system we have now. Basically, Smith’s second idea was flawed.

Oooh, oooh! Can I guess what the flaw is?
Is it that it is impossible to expect people not to throw spokes in the wheel? In other words, you cannot divorce economics from politics, religion or reality.

Isn’t that a pretty good, though slightly different, explaination of what is wrong with command economies too?

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the belief in “capitalism” is the denial that people’s interests conflict – if killing off workers or exposing them to danger makes a profit and you won’t run out of workers, who needs workplace safety? When a company or individual has a large enough market share, you can’t necessarily avoid doing business with them, directly or indirectly.

Plus, there’s really no such thing as a truly ‘voluntary’ exchange since people have different levels of power and wealth – people don’t ‘choose’ to work for minimum wage, just that there are better options open to them, and that the employers have greater power to set wages than workers have to negotiate.

Another problem is laissez-faire economics and its apologists deny that actions which are good for one person (or for some people) might be bad for others – in sociology these are called ‘negative externalities’ and I don’t note that being discussed in many economics textbooks. Kind of like how the customers of a slaughterhouse like getting meat cheap, the owner likes high profits and low overheads, but the workers get carpel tunnel and their fingers hacked off just for having less bargaining power.

I would have respect for Christians if more would vocally oppose the nonsense of Fischer. Unlike what Jesus actually taught, he wants to say you can serve God and Mammon.